Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2016 betting moves a notch back to Hillary on what’s now

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited November 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The WH2016 betting moves a notch back to Hillary on what’s now certain to become the biggest political betting market of all time

We go into the final weekend with Clinton 74% Trump 25% on what's going to be the biggest political betting market of all time pic.twitter.com/FUZES7RDc3

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094
    edited November 2016
    First, like Farron, Hillary...and me!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Second like Leave.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Third like Trump in Utah
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Fifth - like Reman Columnists....

    (joke)
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    6th like .............. oh f**k
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    edited November 2016
    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
    Whilst Marist state polls have him at 2-4 %.

    Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    IanB2 said:

    kle4 said:

    Cicero said:

    I cant help feeling that if Sir Keir Starmee was leading the Labour Party, that the Tories would be looking down the barrel of a gun. The frankly disgraceful headlines in most of the off shore owned UK media seem to have outraged a lot more than the "Establishment elite". I think the backlash to the backlash is in any event going to harm Theresa May quite badly in the longer term. Personally I am so disgusted with the feral press and their extremist anger, that I would even vote Corbyn tactically to punish the Tories for the damage they have already done to the country.

    If it's damage arising from Brexit chaos, I'm afraid it wasn't just the Tories who did that it was tons of labour and lib dem voters too. Which is not to say the headlines have not been bloody silly, as they have been even accepting no one expects a headline to summarise a legal judgement very well, but free press and speech will always entail the acceptance of a certain level of worthless and opprobrious commentary. You may also find corbynites are hardly good examples of avoiding extremist anger.

    But it's not easy to know who to vote for thesedays admittedly. Best hope you have really nice, effective constituency MP I guess.
    I don't think the 'tons of labour and LibDem voters' line will wash, in the long run - it was Tory MPs, the Tory press, and mostly Tory defectors to UKIP, that kept stirring up the EU issue for years, it was the Tories who gave us what history will probably see as an unnecessary referendum, and it was almost all Tories, plus Farage, who were the big players in the leave campaign. In years to come Hoey and Stuart will be forgotten. Everyone knows that without Tory opposition to EU we would not be where we are,

    .
    Doesn't matter if it will 'wash' or not, it's still true. We can all claim we followed where they led so it's their fault, but the Tories are not the pied piper, everyone, including those millions of labour and lib dem voters, had a choice. If Brexit does become a disaster I could hardly claim no one told me it woukd be so, so it doesn't matter if the Tories are tied to it more than the others in terms of actual blame.

    In the end, it will be the voters fault. If someone needs punishing it will indeed be the Tories, particularly since they are in government, but a cross party spectrum made it happen.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585
    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    How much difference, if any, do 'events' make at this point ?
    Enthusiasm at public meetings has not correlated well with electoral success for several decades now.
  • MarkSeniorMarkSenior Posts: 4,699
    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    Not one poll with fieldwork ending in November has Trump ahead in Pennsylvania , average Clinton lead is 3.5
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    Or more to the point Pennsylvania not since 1988
  • I see Mr Phillips chums have been chatting to the press:

    “He has a great mind, but he didn’t help himself by moaning at missing out,” one said. Another said:
    “The last time I saw him, he was downing an awful lot of vodka. He looked bored.”

    Sources claimed pals have been worried about his health for some time.

    Colleagues said it made no sense that his resignation came 24 hours after the High Court’s Article 50 ruling – which means Parliament will have a say after all.....

    ...George Clark, the head of the Sleaford Conservative Association, said the local party was “disappointed” at his resignation and backed the “strong” PM to forge a “new positive role for the United Kingdom on the world stage as we leave the EU”


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2116422/leave-supporting-tory-mp-stephen-phillips-sensationally-quits-over-the-governments-approach-to-brexit/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
    Whilst Marist state polls have him at 2-4 %.

    Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
    Most polls have the Democratic share of the African American vote returning to average after the boost Obama gave it while Trump is closing in on the share of the white vote Romney got.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Obviously the power of Jack's ARSE4US. It doesn't seem to be the line taken by the analysts at the BBC
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
    Whilst Marist state polls have him at 2-4 %.

    Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
    Most polls have the Democratic share of the African American vote returning to average after the boost Obama gave it while Trump is closing in on the share of the white vote Romney got.
    and the hispanics/women share?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    I'm sure the top judges are independent, but they are human. Some elements of the judgement will be subjective because there are never totally objective views. It's worrying that people don't seem aware if this. They may appoint some top judges in America, but there's often a fuss over how they appointed - because they have natural biases.

    It also happens in the most objective of subjects - science. Scientists can have different views. Faced with objective evidence, they can come to differing opinions. At least we are aware of this and don't pretend otherwise.

    Of course they're human. And the judgment may yet be overturned. If you accept that they are doing their honest best, you will condemn headlines that accuse them of being enemies of the people.
    Hear hear.

    I see Mr Phillips chums have been chatting to the press:

    “He has a great mind, but he didn’t help himself by moaning at missing out,” one said. Another said:
    “The last time I saw him, he was downing an awful lot of vodka. He looked bored.”

    Sources claimed pals have been worried about his health for some time.

    Colleagues said it made no sense that his resignation came 24 hours after the High Court’s Article 50 ruling – which means Parliament will have a say after all.....

    ...George Clark, the head of the Sleaford Conservative Association, said the local party was “disappointed” at his resignation and backed the “strong” PM to forge a “new positive role for the United Kingdom on the world stage as we leave the EU”


    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2116422/leave-supporting-tory-mp-stephen-phillips-sensationally-quits-over-the-governments-approach-to-brexit/

    Well parliament may not have a say, the judgement may yet be overturned, of course focusing on That ignores the other reasons he said he was resigning. Given the reason, I'd imagine we'll see plenty of dirt thrown his way, which may be justified for all I know.
  • Mr. P, that pie chart includes those ineligible to vote and those who chose not to.

    Neither group's opinions matter. Of those who could be bothered, a small but clear majority wanted to leave.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
    Whilst Marist state polls have him at 2-4 %.

    Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
    Most polls have the Democratic share of the African American vote returning to average after the boost Obama gave it while Trump is closing in on the share of the white vote Romney got.
    and the hispanics/women share?
    Trump actually leads white non college educated women though Hillary has a clear lead with female graduates, the Hispanic shares are little changed from 2012 though Trump is doing much better with Asians than Romney did and there are a fair few of them in Nevada, Colorado and Florida and Ohio
  • Scott_P said:
    If you don't bother to vote you don't get to be listened to.

    More people voted for Brexit than have voted for any winning party at a General election in British history. All you are really saying here is that every election in history has been invalid.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585

    Mr. P, that pie chart includes those ineligible to vote and those who chose not to.

    Neither group's opinions matter. Of those who could be bothered, a small but clear majority wanted to leave.

    Try telling your as yet ineligible to vote children that their opinions don't matter.
    I was never that brave.
    :-)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961
    Scott_P said:
    18.6m who can't vote. What the fuck is the point in including them?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited November 2016

    Mr. P, that pie chart includes those ineligible to vote and those who chose not to.

    Neither group's opinions matter. Of those who could be bothered, a small but clear majority wanted to leave.

    Quite so. If people didn't turn out for this one it's their own damn fault. And as for the cannot votes, since when do they get counted? Unlike the didn't bothers they didn't get a choice to vote, so no matter how many we can presume woukd support one side or another, it wouldn't matter. Of those that gave a preference leave won, so those complaining about use of majority of the country as a phrase I don't even know the point.

    It's a semantic whinge. When people say majority of the country everyone knows it means ''of those that voted'. Yes it's not literally a majority of the country, but its ambiguously got more proven support than other options, or did at the time.

    CD13 said:

    Mr Meeks,

    I'm sure the top judges are independent, but they are human. Some elements of the judgement will be subjective because there are never totally objective views. It's worrying that people don't seem aware if this. They may appoint some top judges in America, but there's often a fuss over how they appointed - because they have natural biases.

    It also happens in the most objective of subientists can have different views. Faced with objective evidence, they can come to differing opinions. At least we are aware of this and don't pretend otherwise.

    Of course they're human. And the judgment may yet be overturned. If you accept that they are doing their honest best, you will condemn headlines that accuse them of being enemies of the people.
    Hear hear.
    Nigelb said:

    Mr. Meeks, if we're discussing morality, the judgement is indefensible. If we're discussing legality, the judgement was technically correct and freedom of speech enables the press and plebs to condemn it.

    Edited extra bit: also, you can't reasonably claim judges are objective fellows and then state that the Supreme Court is likelier to back up the original ruling because they're upset the judges have taken a kicking from the press.

    Good morning, Mr D.
    In what way is the judgment morally indefensible ?
    I presume on the basis it went against something the public wants. Even though the judgement did not do that, even if the claimants hope to use it to do so, which as is right and proper was irrelevant to a question of law.

    Huge respect to MD, but I feel he's gone a little overboard on the outrage of the judgement. If they're legally wrong, as threequidder and others say, fine, but nit even the government argued it was not a question that it was proper for the court to rule on, which means both outcomes are morally acceptable.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    How much difference, if any, do 'events' make at this point ?
    Enthusiasm at public meetings has not correlated well with electoral success for several decades now.
    In a tight race a lot, Hillary's average lead is down to just 1 to 2% with RCP nationally, in 2000 Al Gore campaigned non-stop in the last few days while Bush spent much of it recuperating in Texas thinking the election won, Gore won the popular vote and lost the EC by a fraction
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    edited November 2016
    FPT. It's the attitude towards the judges that epitomises the reasons why the REMAINERS were so worried about leaving. The popular press in this country have always had the ability to mobilize the mob

    So it's always been comforting to know that at least with Europe being the final arbiter it at least it felt like we had a line of defense against this egregious 4th Estate.

    Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and we're on our own. The press assume free rein to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in the expectation of cowering them into submission.


  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    I am an old softy but I found those pictures of the poor and neglected standing in line on the last thread quite affecting. It's amazing what can happen in a democracy when you piss enough people off. That is the message of Scott's rather silly chart.
  • Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    How much difference, if any, do 'events' make at this point ?
    Enthusiasm at public meetings has not correlated well with electoral success for several decades now.
    It's about local news channel coverage more than the rally itself.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Scott_P said:
    18.6m who can't vote. What the fuck is the point in including them?
    Because lumping in foreign nationals and children makes the Leave number look smaller, of course.

    As dodgy as a Lib Dem bar chart.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    Not one poll with fieldwork ending in November has Trump ahead in Pennsylvania , average Clinton lead is 3.5
    He was tied in 1 in Colorado though and he is also doing an event there, that would be enough even without Pennsylvania
  • Mr. B, sorry, missed your post before.

    The moral aspect is because this is a legalistic approach being used to delay on a technicality the referendum result with a view to preventing its implementation entirely (either by remaining in the EU or by departing but in name only). The weight of moral authority is entirely with the PM here.

    Also, Lycurgus, the Spartan law-giver, told those who said democracy was a better system of governance that they should try it in their own families.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    Scott_P said:
    You could make that argument about any elected government and Leave won more votes than Blair did in 1997
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905

    Scott_P said:
    18.6m who can't vote. What the fuck is the point in including them?
    Because lumping in foreign nationals and children makes the Leave number look smaller, of course.

    As dodgy as a Lib Dem bar chart.
    I mean, I, for one, am shocked - truly shocked - that nobody thought to consult babies over Brexit.

    There are some prize fuckwits about, aren't there?
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited November 2016
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
    Whilst Marist state polls have him at 2-4 %.

    Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
    Most polls have the Democratic share of the African American vote returning to average after the boost Obama gave it while Trump is closing in on the share of the white vote Romney got.
    I think that probably true inthe case of AA voters getting back to usual turnout post Obama. The Dems will have 90% of them though, as they have had in every election of the last 50 years.

    The Hispanic vote will be up, and much more Dem than usual. This is also a growing share of the population, as are Asian Americans who will also be more Dem than usual.

    Tbe boost in women wanting a first female POTUS is potentially quite a source of shy Clintonites. Trumpists seem anything but shy!

    Trump will outperform Romney in the Midwest, but do worse in the Sunbelt.

    I am backing Hillary on Spin at 295, and think she will win. Trump offers some value on the state markets. I am on him at good odds in Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

    Overall on Betfair the value looks to be on Trump. The fact that Trump is so manifestly unfit for the post bothers bettors here more than voters across the pond.
  • Scott_P said:
    18.6m who can't vote. What the fuck is the point in including them?
    Because lumping in foreign nationals and children makes the Leave number look smaller, of course.

    As dodgy as a Lib Dem bar chart.
    I mean, I, for one, am shocked - truly shocked - that nobody thought to consult babies over Brexit.

    There are some prize fuckwits about, aren't there?
    Yep And Scott is high on that list
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    Scott_P said:
    If you don't bother to vote you don't get to be listened to.

    More people voted for Brexit than have voted for any winning party at a General election in British history. All you are really saying here is that every election in history has been invalid.
    70% of the electorate didn't vote Labour in 1997, but it would be futile to deny that the will of the voters was to chuck out the Tories and to return a Labour government. I hated the outcome, but I just had to live with it.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    Nate Silver has rather a strange article on 538, essentially suggesting that while the national polls are looking reassuring for Clinton because her rating has stabilised after the effect of the FBI intervention, the state polls are less so because the map is messy and her firewall has been disrupted:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-clintons-lead-stabilizing-state-polls-not-so-much/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

    But as far as I can see, on average the state polls he quotes are very much in line with what would be expected (or maybe even a bit better for Clinton), considering that her national lead is down by nearly 3%. Silver's model suggests that Trump's vote is a bit more efficiently distributed than Clinton's, so surely it would be inconsistent to expect there still to be a dependable firewall when her national lead is only 3%?

    In fact, based on the data on the accuracy of polls in the last 12 presidential elections, in another 538 article, I have trouble seeing why his model gives Trump a winning probability as high as 35%. On the historical data, his probability of winning the popular vote would be more like 12%. Part of the difference is accounted for by 538's 12% probability of Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college. Maybe the rest comes from uncertainty owing to the higher-than-usual number of undecideds and minor candidate supporters?
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and we're on our own. The press assume free reign to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in the expectation of cowering them into submission.''

    For all those who think we should accept judges' deliberations in hushed silence with caps doffed, here's an idea.

    Why don't we adopt the American system where the ruling party gets to nominate judges for the supreme court?

    The Americans are under no illusions that the legal profession is a profoundly political animal. And judges are nurtured and produced by the legal profession.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
    Whilst Marist state polls have him at 2-4 %.

    Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
    Most polls have the Democratic share of the African American vote returning to average after the boost Obama gave it while Trump is closing in on the share of the white vote Romney got.
    I think that probably true inthe case of AA voters getting back to usual turnout post Obama. The Dems will have 90% of them though, as they have had in every election of the last 50 years.

    The Hispanic vote will be up, and much more Dem than usual. This is also a growing share of the population, as are Asian Americans who will also be more Dem than usual.

    Tbe boost in women wanting a first female POTUS is potentially quite a source of shy Clintonites. Trumpists seem anything but shy!

    Trump will outperform Romney in the Midwest, but do worse in the Sunbelt.

    I am backing Hillary on Spin at 295, and think she will win. Trump offers some value on the state markets. I am on him at good odds in Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

    Overall on Betfair the value looks to be on Trump. The fact that Trump is so manifestly unfit for the post bothers bettors here more than voters across the pond.
    Wrong on Asian Americans, ABC has Trump getting 40% of them, well up on what Romney got. It is not so much shy Trumpites that is key but turning out Trumpites especially in the Midwest, some may not have bothered to vote for Romney but will vote for Trump. White female graduates will go for Hillary comfortably but Trump will win white working class and lower middle class women
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    taffys said:

    ''Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and we're on our own. The press assume free reign to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in the expectation of cowering them into submission.''

    For all those who think we should accept judges' deliberations in hushed silence with caps doffed, here's an idea.

    Why don't we adopt the American system where the ruling party gets to nominate judges for the supreme court?

    Why don't we go the whole hog and elect them? Andrea Leadsom for Lord Chief Justice!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    303 looks like a buy to me. If Trump does better than expected then the downside is still quite limited. If Clinton does better the upside is considerable.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited November 2016
    kle4 said:




    I presume on the basis it went against something the public wants. Even though the judgement did not do that, even if the claimants hope to use it to do so, which as is right and proper was irrelevant to a question of law.

    Huge respect to MD, but I feel he's gone a little overboard on the outrage of the judgement. If they're legally wrong, as threequidder and others say, fine, but nit even the government argued it was not a question that it was proper for the court to rule on, which means both outcomes are morally acceptable.

    Having re read the judgement a couple of times I am really stumped to see anywhere it can be considered to be legally wrong. It is clearly argued and of course I am not a lawyer but I cannot see anywhere where the logic of the decision falls down. I would be honestly amazed if it gets overturned on appeal. May would be better off stopping wasting time and just get a bill put before Parliament.

  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    What's the view on here about an early general election?

    Personally I think its a ruse to concentrate minds. Especially labour minds.
  • Debate going on between Hodges and @ElectProject (an interesting site for Early voting) over CO.

    Hodges has had a minor panic this morning.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    Mr. B, sorry, missed your post before.

    The moral aspect is because this is a legalistic approach being used to delay on a technicality the referendum result with a view to preventing its implementation entirely (either by remaining in the EU or by departing but in name only). The weight of moral authority is entirely with the PM here.

    Also, Lycurgus, the Spartan law-giver, told those who said democracy was a better system of governance that they should try it in their own families.

    The result of the referendum being implemented is not delayed by the judgement my friend, we weren't triggering until march anyway. And departing in name only woukd still be Implementing the referendum - not a popular one I should think, but while harder Brexit can reasonably claim to have more support as an idea, neither soft or hard or in name only has formal backing from the public over the other ideas, so the idea to choose one over the other is morally wrong is a logical nonsense,

    I think May will go for a Hardish Brexit, but ultra hardcores will still no doubt claim she has ignored something vital and that is morally wrong. That would be incorrect.

    In any case, I don't want judges who are ruling on a technical point of law to come to a different view because of the morality of this, moral questions are for politicians. You are seriously saying it's morally wrong the judges upheld the law? If the law itself is immoral, parliament can change that.
  • Roger said:

    FPT. It's the attitude towards the judges that epitomises the reasons why the REMAINERS were so worried about leaving. The popular press in this country have always had the ability to mobilize the mob

    So it's always been comforting to know that at least with Europe being the final arbiter it at least it felt like we had a line of defense against this egregious 4th Estate.

    Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and we're on our own. The press assume free rein to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in the expectation of cowering them into submission.


    Good. A free press us critical to a free nation. A press that is not free to humiliate others is dangerous not positive. Restricted press is the tool of dictators not free nations.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    taffys said:

    ''Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and we're on our own. The press assume free reign to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in the expectation of cowering them into submission.''

    For all those who think we should accept judges' deliberations in hushed silence with caps doffed, here's an idea.

    Why don't we adopt the American system where the ruling party gets to nominate judges for the supreme court?

    The Americans are under no illusions that the legal profession is a profoundly political animal. And judges are nurtured and produced by the legal profession.

    The role of the SCOTUS is to ensure that the Legislature and Executive work to the limits set out inthe famously hard to amend US Constitution.

    We would need a similar Constitution if we were to go down the routeof politically appointed judges.

  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    NC early voting. The Independent voting being up is very interesting

    Dems had a good day y'day w/ high turnout, but also happened in 2012. Relative to same day 2012:
    Dem +0.2%
    Rep +15.0%
    Unaffiliated +44.6%
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585

    Mr. B, sorry, missed your post before.

    The moral aspect is because this is a legalistic approach being used to delay on a technicality the referendum result with a view to preventing its implementation entirely (either by remaining in the EU or by departing but in name only). The weight of moral authority is entirely with the PM here.

    Also, Lycurgus, the Spartan law-giver, told those who said democracy was a better system of governance that they should try it in their own families.

    Thanks for the response, though I'm not sure I agree.
    It's hard to see how judges can take anything other than a legalistic approach - that is after all what we employ them to do.
    If there is any moral blame, it lies with the politicians who promise a decisive referendum, but failed to set up the legal structures to deliver it. Principally Cameron, then - but also perhaps May for what looks a lot like dithering.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    FPT

    @AlastairMeeks

    'Incidentally, I cannot think of anything more calculated to get the Supreme Court starting from a predisposition of upholding the current judgment than a fullscale assault on three of their most respected colleagues by the tabloids without the government fulsomely defending the independence of the judiciary.'

    So much for your claim about Judges not being biased.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
    Whilst Marist state polls have him at 2-4 %.

    Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
    Most polls have the Democratic share of the African American vote returning to average after the boost Obama gave it while Trump is closing in on the share of the white vote Romney got.
    I think that probably true inthe case of AA voters getting back to usual turnout post Obama. The Dems will have 90% of them though, as they have had in every election of the last 50 years.

    The Hispanic vote will be up, and much more Dem than usual. This is also a growing share of the population, as are Asian Americans who will also be more Dem than usual.

    Tbe boost in women wanting a first female POTUS is potentially quite a source of shy Clintonites. Trumpists seem anything but shy!

    Trump will outperform Romney in the Midwest, but do worse in the Sunbelt.

    I am backing Hillary on Spin at 295, and think she will win. Trump offers some value on the state markets. I am on him at good odds in Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

    Overall on Betfair the value looks to be on Trump. The fact that Trump is so manifestly unfit for the post bothers bettors here more than voters across the pond.
    Two trends favour Trump. A big increase in support among non-college educated White voters, and a reversion to normal turnout among black voters. Two work against him. A loss of support among college educated White voters and Hispanic voters. You're quite to say where this benefits and works against him. On balance, it works in his favour in swing States.

    But, if Hillary wins the popular vote by 2-3%, she'll win the Electoral College clearly enough.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 18,891
    Scott_P said:
    A very comforting graph. Instead of walking through the streets believing one-in-two of the people I walk past are dimwitted and more than likely racist I now know the figure is only one-in-four.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Looks like women are voting more than men at the moment

    https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/794628057713754112
  • Morning all.

    Sorry to be uncouth at this time of the morning, but does anyone have a ball park figure for how much has traded hands during the ‘biggest political betting market of all time’ ?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    619 said:

    Looks like women are voting more than men at the moment

    https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/794628057713754112

    That simply says women are more likely to vote early than men in a few states, over 80% of Americans are still to vote and as I said Trump clearly leads white non college educated women if it is they who are showing the biggest increase
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    taffys said:

    ''Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and we're on our own. The press assume free reign to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in the expectation of cowering them into submission.''

    For all those who think we should accept judges' deliberations in hushed silence with caps doffed, here's an idea.

    Why don't we adopt the American system where the ruling party gets to nominate judges for the supreme court?

    The Americans are under no illusions that the legal profession is a profoundly political animal. And judges are nurtured and produced by the legal profession.

    When we have proper separation of powers, perhaps.
  • This is interesting for those of us holding out for a big payout on TX going Dem:

    "The polls also target the “wrong Latinos,” making their sample unrepresentative of eligible voters, said Sanchez. By not offering interviews in Spanish and relying on interviews via internet and fixed home phone lines, they end up with a biased sample of more assimilated, native-born, higher income and higher educated voters, according to internal poll research conducted by Latino Decisions."

    http://www.univision.com/univision-news/politics/do-polls-underestimate-the-democratic-partys-latino-vote
  • Mr. Roger, do you believe I'm dimwitted/racist?

    Mr. B, it's akin to a celebrity whose lawyer gets them off a dangerous driving charge due to using a mobile telephone by claiming they were using its dictaphone or calculator function.

    Legally, it's in order. Morally, it stinks.

    We do agree that Cameron's cocked up just about every part of this referendum.

    Mr. kle4, time will tell.

    *plays Red Alert theme*
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585
    taffys said:

    What's the view on here about an early general election?

    Personally I think its a ruse to concentrate minds. Especially labour minds.

    Reading the Telegraph article, it seems more as though the government is trying to prepare for being overtaken by events. Which does of course prompt the question why they are not instead driving events.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    619 said:

    NC early voting. The Independent voting being up is very interesting

    Dems had a good day y'day w/ high turnout, but also happened in 2012. Relative to same day 2012:
    Dem +0.2%
    Rep +15.0%
    Unaffiliated +44.6%

    Trump tends to lead with unaffiliated voters
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    Sean_F said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Fourth like Trump in vote share with AA and Hispanics

    Rubbish, ABC has Trump doing better with African Americans than Romney
    Whilst Marist state polls have him at 2-4 %.

    Anyway, it was a joke! bloody hell...
    Most polls have the Democratic share of the African American vote returning to average after the boost Obama gave it while Trump is closing in on the share of the white vote Romney got.
    I think that probably true inthe case of AA voters getting back to usual turnout post Obama. The Dems will have 90% of them though, as they have had in every election of the last 50 years.

    The Hispanic vote will be up, and much more Dem than usual. This is also a growing share of the population, as are Asian Americans who will also be more Dem than usual.

    Tbe boost in women wanting a first female POTUS is potentially quite a source of shy Clintonites. Trumpists seem anything but shy!

    Trump will outperform Romney in the Midwest, but do worse in the Sunbelt.

    I am backing Hillary on Spin at 295, and think she will win. Trump offers some value on the state markets. I am on him at good odds in Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

    Overall on Betfair the value looks to be on Trump. The fact that Trump is so manifestly unfit for the post bothers bettors here more than voters across the pond.
    Two trends favour Trump. A big increase in support among non-college educated White voters, and a reversion to normal turnout among black voters. Two work against him. A loss of support among college educated White voters and Hispanic voters. You're quite to say where this benefits and works against him. On balance, it works in his favour in swing States.

    But, if Hillary wins the popular vote by 2-3%, she'll win the Electoral College clearly enough.
    But in a republican year NC and Arizona are not swing states. They are locked up early. The trends you have identified are giving the GOP a new set of problems and risks.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    taffys said:

    ''Yesterday was a dystopian vision into the future where all checks and balances are lost and we're on our own. The press assume free reign to humiliate and denigrate those whose job it is to interpret the law in the expectation of cowering them into submission.''

    For all those who think we should accept judges' deliberations in hushed silence with caps doffed, here's an idea.

    Why don't we adopt the American system where the ruling party gets to nominate judges for the supreme court?

    The Americans are under no illusions that the legal profession is a profoundly political animal. And judges are nurtured and produced by the legal profession.

    It's an idea. I cannot say I like it on the face of it, but I admit I'd need to analyse it a bit more.

    And few are saying we need to doff caps in silence. Free press and speech protects much that is worthless, and the headlines were over the top, but that's freedom for you.

    kle4 said:




    I presume on the basis it went against something the public wants. Even though the judgement did not do that, even if the claimants hope to use it to do so, which as is right and proper was irrelevant to a question of law.

    Huge respect to MD, but I feel he's gone a little overboard on the outrage of the judgement. If they're legally wrong, as threequidder and others say, fine, but nit even the government argued it was not a question that it was proper for the court to rule on, which means both outcomes are morally acceptable.

    Having re read the judgement a couple of times I am really stumped to see anywhere it can be considered to be legally wrong. It is clearly argued and of course I am not a lawyer but I cannot see anywhere where the logic of the decision falls down. I would be honestly amazed if it gets overturned on appeal. May would be better off stopping wasting time and just get a bill put before Parliament.

    As a Lay person I found it convincing, but I'd likely find most judgements convincing. But it argued the government case was flawed at a fundamental level and in some ways actually bolstered the claimants case. So either the judges will have to be the ones to have got things wrong on a fundamental level, or the government needs new arguments, or both,
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    Not one poll with fieldwork ending in November has Trump ahead in Pennsylvania , average Clinton lead is 3.5
    He was tied in 1 in Colorado though and he is also doing an event there, that would be enough even without Pennsylvania
    yes that tie in Colorado should act as a warning to trump backers, that tells me they are not polling minorities properly again, room for a big error in Clinton's favour.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    edited November 2016

    kle4 said:




    I presume on the basis it went against something the public wants. Even though the judgement did not do that, even if the claimants hope to use it to do so, which as is right and proper was irrelevant to a question of law.

    Huge respect to MD, but I feel he's gone a little overboard on the outrage of the judgement. If they're legally wrong, as threequidder and others say, fine, but nit even the government argued it was not a question that it was proper for the court to rule on, which means both outcomes are morally acceptable.

    Having re read the judgement a couple of times I am really stumped to see anywhere it can be considered to be legally wrong. It is clearly argued and of course I am not a lawyer but I cannot see anywhere where the logic of the decision falls down. I would be honestly amazed if it gets overturned on appeal. May would be better off stopping wasting time and just get a bill put before Parliament.

    Judgements can be unpredictable. I couldn't see a flaw in the reasoning in the first instance ruling in the case brought by Labour party members who were denied a vote in the leadership election, but it was still overturned on appeal.

    And a case this important really has to be ruled on by the Supreme Court. For one thing, if they uphold the judgement, they need to specify how exactly Parliament triggers the exercise of A 50.
  • I note that the non-Trump/Clinton candidates on Betfair have finally seen their odds approach the more realistic 1000 mark. Just a few days ago it was still possible to trade Biden in the mid-100s and even , but now the market is cleaning out anything remotely low on the field.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''We would need a similar Constitution if we were to go down the routeof politically appointed judges. ''

    Alistair Meeks argued that the judges in Britain are politically impartial and their decision should be accepted without question.

    My point is that the American system assumes that judges are never politically impartial.

    One of our American posters stated the real shame of a Clinton win was the effect on the US supreme court.
  • Black_RookBlack_Rook Posts: 8,905
    Chris said:

    Nate Silver has rather a strange article on 538, essentially suggesting that while the national polls are looking reassuring for Clinton because her rating has stabilised after the effect of the FBI intervention, the state polls are less so because the map is messy and her firewall has been disrupted:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-clintons-lead-stabilizing-state-polls-not-so-much/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

    But as far as I can see, on average the state polls he quotes are very much in line with what would be expected (or maybe even a bit better for Clinton), considering that her national lead is down by nearly 3%. Silver's model suggests that Trump's vote is a bit more efficiently distributed than Clinton's, so surely it would be inconsistent to expect there still to be a dependable firewall when her national lead is only 3%?

    In fact, based on the data on the accuracy of polls in the last 12 presidential elections, in another 538 article, I have trouble seeing why his model gives Trump a winning probability as high as 35%. On the historical data, his probability of winning the popular vote would be more like 12%. Part of the difference is accounted for by 538's 12% probability of Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college. Maybe the rest comes from uncertainty owing to the higher-than-usual number of undecideds and minor candidate supporters?

    The national polling average is close, and a lot of people seem to be betting the farm on the polls being accurate. If there is even a moderate error, say the 3% swing that we saw in last year's GE over here, then Trump could be ahead and in with a good chance of pulling this off. In other words, try asking Ed Miliband, and all the newspaper columnists who wasted thousands of trees writing useless speculation about hung parliament scenarios, where putting your faith in polling accuracy gets you.

    I hope that Hillary wins. But hope isn't enough.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    Looks like women are voting more than men at the moment

    https://twitter.com/ElectProject/status/794628057713754112

    That simply says women are more likely to vote early than men in a few states, over 80% of Americans are still to vote and as I said Trump clearly leads white non college educated women if it is they who are showing the biggest increase
    college educated women vote the most. Trump is generally down with women overall.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    taffys said:

    What's the view on here about an early general election?

    Personally I think its a ruse to concentrate minds. Especially labour minds.

    I think there is massive temptation to do so, particularly if the court upholds the judgement, but I think May would be happy to carry on. The process will be frustrated a little, but that actually gives her even more time to prepare.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    HYUFD said:

    619 said:

    NC early voting. The Independent voting being up is very interesting

    Dems had a good day y'day w/ high turnout, but also happened in 2012. Relative to same day 2012:
    Dem +0.2%
    Rep +15.0%
    Unaffiliated +44.6%

    Trump tends to lead with unaffiliated voters
    A tweet previously on that had Indies having a high percentage of hispanic voters who never voted before
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,776
    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    A very comforting graph. Instead of walking through the streets believing one-in-two of the people I walk past are dimwitted and more than likely racist I now know the figure is only one-in-four.
    Look in the mirror.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ollege educated women vote the most. Trump is generally down with women overall.

    Are there figures for first time/never voted before voters?

    If there was a trump surge, I guess it would be found there.
  • PlatoSaidPlatoSaid Posts: 10,383
    edited November 2016
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    How much difference, if any, do 'events' make at this point ?
    Enthusiasm at public meetings has not correlated well with electoral success for several decades now.
    It gets him acres of local news coverage and some network coverage. That's what each candidate is after at this stage - they're in message broadcast mode.

    Speaking of that - Trump's latest advert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8&feature=youtu.be

    And Scott Adams' analysis re persuasion factor - http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152747601271/trump-the-closer
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585

    Mr. Roger, do you believe I'm dimwitted/racist?

    Mr. B, it's akin to a celebrity whose lawyer gets them off a dangerous driving charge due to using a mobile telephone by claiming they were using its dictaphone or calculator function.

    Legally, it's in order. Morally, it stinks.

    We do agree that Cameron's cocked up just about every part of this referendum.

    Mr. kle4, time will tell.

    *plays Red Alert theme*

    Mr D, that analogy doesn't even begin to fly for me. What would stink is judges twisting what is fairly settled law to pander to popular opinion.
    The remedy for this is in the government's hands, and has been all along. Just show some spine and put a simple bill through parliament. May is clearly capable of telling hard truths (cf the Police Federation, for instance), but I get the impression that she is averse to taking part in difficult debates.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    taffys said:

    ''We would need a similar Constitution if we were to go down the routeof politically appointed judges. ''

    Alistair Meeks argued that the judges in Britain are politically impartial and their decision should be accepted without question.

    My point is that the American system assumes that judges are never politically impartial.

    One of our American posters stated the real shame of a Clinton win was the effect on the US supreme court.

    they are political in the US because they are elected. A system here similar to the US is not a good idea.

    Shame depends on your perspective i guess
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    If the Supreme Court upholds the judgement I guess the enemies of the people line will need to be smaller to fit all 11 of them in the page.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    619 said:
    This is the way I am seeing it this morning. Until now Hispanics have been one of the least likely to vote segments in the US and any half competent polling model will reflect that. If they turn out in much greater numbers than the models indicate they are sufficiently populous and sufficiently concentrated to swing several sunshine states.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Nigelb said:

    Mr. Roger, do you believe I'm dimwitted/racist?

    Mr. B, it's akin to a celebrity whose lawyer gets them off a dangerous driving charge due to using a mobile telephone by claiming they were using its dictaphone or calculator function.

    Legally, it's in order. Morally, it stinks.

    We do agree that Cameron's cocked up just about every part of this referendum.

    Mr. kle4, time will tell.

    *plays Red Alert theme*

    Mr D, that analogy doesn't even begin to fly for me. What would stink is judges twisting what is fairly settled law to pander to popular opinion.
    The remedy for this is in the government's hands, and has been all along. Just show some spine and put a simple bill through parliament. May is clearly capable of telling hard truths (cf the Police Federation, for instance), but I get the impression that she is averse to taking part in difficult debates.
    Well quite. If the law is a problem, we have this thing that can sort that out, and it's far less constrained in how it wants to do so than in most places,
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,776
    Sean_F said:

    kle4 said:




    I presume on the basis it went against something the public wants. Even though the judgement did not do that, even if the claimants hope to use it to do so, which as is right and proper was irrelevant to a question of law.

    Huge respect to MD, but I feel he's gone a little overboard on the outrage of the judgement. If they're legally wrong, as threequidder and others say, fine, but nit even the government argued it was not a question that it was proper for the court to rule on, which means both outcomes are morally acceptable.

    Having re read the judgement a couple of times I am really stumped to see anywhere it can be considered to be legally wrong. It is clearly argued and of course I am not a lawyer but I cannot see anywhere where the logic of the decision falls down. I would be honestly amazed if it gets overturned on appeal. May would be better off stopping wasting time and just get a bill put before Parliament.

    Judgements can be unpredictable. I couldn't see a flaw in the reasoning in the first instance ruling in the case brought by Labour party members who were denied a vote in the leadership election, but it was still overturned on appeal.

    And a case this important really has to be ruled on by the Supreme Court. For one thing, if they uphold the judgement, they need to specify how exactly Parliament triggers the exercise of A 50.
    Judgments, like history, are written by the winners. It is the winners argument that the Court has found compelling and this is reflected in their reasoning. A different court with a different view writes from a different perspective. But the government needs new and sharper arguments.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    taffys said:

    ollege educated women vote the most. Trump is generally down with women overall.

    Are there figures for first time/never voted before voters?

    If there was a trump surge, I guess it would be found there.

    There are signs of increasing early voting with low propenity hispanic voters. Massivley in some cases, as ive said below. Thats not a Trump surge
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''they are political in the US because they are elected. A system here similar to the US is not a good idea.''

    I think you could argue the US system assumes it is naive to expect a judge to be politically impartial, yet we are expected to believe just that notion and accept it without question.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    Sean_F said:

    Roger said:

    Scott_P said:
    A very comforting graph. Instead of walking through the streets believing one-in-two of the people I walk past are dimwitted and more than likely racist I now know the figure is only one-in-four.
    Look in the mirror.
    Hush now, we all know a lifetime of recording tampax adverts is an unmistakable mark of intellectual superiority.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,724
    PlatoSaid said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    How much difference, if any, do 'events' make at this point ?
    Enthusiasm at public meetings has not correlated well with electoral success for several decades now.
    It gets him acres of local news coverage and some network coverage. That's what each candidate is after at this stage - they're in message broadcast mode.

    Speaking of that - Trump's latest advert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8&feature=youtu.be

    And Scott Adams' analysis re persuasion factor - http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152747601271/trump-the-closer
    Of whom does that advert remind me?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    DavidL said:

    619 said:
    This is the way I am seeing it this morning. Until now Hispanics have been one of the least likely to vote segments in the US and any half competent polling model will reflect that. If they turn out in much greater numbers than the models indicate they are sufficiently populous and sufficiently concentrated to swing several sunshine states.
    On balance and given higher white working class turnout and voteshare for Trump elsewhere and lower African American voteshare for Hillary that is why I remain of the view Trump is more likely to win the popular vote than the electoral college. However if white working voters turn out for Trump on the day in Nevada and Florida he could still scrape home there, Hispanics make up less than a third of the population in the former still even if most vote unlike, say New Mexico, where they now make up almost half and which will comfortably be in the Clinton column now. Florida also has Cubans who lean Trump
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    taffys said:

    ''they are political in the US because they are elected. A system here similar to the US is not a good idea.''

    I think you could argue the US system assumes it is naive to expect a judge to be politically impartial, yet we are expected to believe just that notion and accept it without question.

    Judges are only there to follow the law, not public or their own private opinion. Thats the basic tennants of the legal system. There is nothing here to suggest that the Art 50 decision was motovated by anything other than the law.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    T''here are signs of increasing early voting with low propenity hispanic voters. Massivley in some cases, as ive said below. Thats not a Trump surge''

    Indeed but hispanics aren;t the only low propensity group, surely. Poor black and white voters must also be pretty low propensity. America had 94 million adults out of the work force FFS.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,585

    Chris said:

    Nate Silver has rather a strange article on 538, essentially suggesting that while the national polls are looking reassuring for Clinton because her rating has stabilised after the effect of the FBI intervention, the state polls are less so because the map is messy and her firewall has been disrupted:
    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-clintons-lead-stabilizing-state-polls-not-so-much/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

    But as far as I can see, on average the state polls he quotes are very much in line with what would be expected (or maybe even a bit better for Clinton), considering that her national lead is down by nearly 3%. Silver's model suggests that Trump's vote is a bit more efficiently distributed than Clinton's, so surely it would be inconsistent to expect there still to be a dependable firewall when her national lead is only 3%?

    In fact, based on the data on the accuracy of polls in the last 12 presidential elections, in another 538 article, I have trouble seeing why his model gives Trump a winning probability as high as 35%. On the historical data, his probability of winning the popular vote would be more like 12%. Part of the difference is accounted for by 538's 12% probability of Trump losing the popular vote but winning the electoral college. Maybe the rest comes from uncertainty owing to the higher-than-usual number of undecideds and minor candidate supporters?

    The national polling average is close, and a lot of people seem to be betting the farm on the polls being accurate. If there is even a moderate error, say the 3% swing that we saw in last year's GE over here, then Trump could be ahead and in with a good chance of pulling this off. In other words, try asking Ed Miliband, and all the newspaper columnists who wasted thousands of trees writing useless speculation about hung parliament scenarios, where putting your faith in polling accuracy gets you.

    I hope that Hillary wins. But hope isn't enough.
    I think that's right. This is a highly unusual election, and if polls can be wrong at the best of times, these are not the best of times.
    I also think (& hope) that Clinton is more likely than not to win, but I am also prepared for the polls to be out by more than 2% in key states, which is worrying.
  • An interesting view. If Article 50 should be for Parliament then what about the past?

    The list of worrying consequences goes on. What power have ministers ever had to agree in Brussels to EU measures such as Directives that (as the High Court sees it) change the law in this country when adopted? It seems to me at least arguable that, according to the High Court, all of this was unlawful—and that, to act lawfully now, we must all behave as if Britain were still in the European Community as it existed on 1 January 1973, before ministers by prerogative “unlawfully” made any changes. The solution to this conundrum can’t be that Parliament later “cured” ministerial unlawfulness by confirming the changes they’d agreed; if that were the answer, then the government’s planned “great repeal bill” could cure the supposed unlawfulness of article 50 notification.

    https://www.headoflegal.com/2016/11/04/why-the-high-court-got-the-law-wrong-about-brexit/
  • Mr. L, I know people say that, but it's worth noting the first (that I know of) history of war, Thucydides, was actually written by a general on the losing side.

    That's why it's called the Peloponnesian War. Usually, wars are named after the losers in histories written by the winners (hence, Gallic, Napoleonic, Samnite, Hannibalic Wars).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,714
    nunu said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    Not one poll with fieldwork ending in November has Trump ahead in Pennsylvania , average Clinton lead is 3.5
    He was tied in 1 in Colorado though and he is also doing an event there, that would be enough even without Pennsylvania
    yes that tie in Colorado should act as a warning to trump backers, that tells me they are not polling minorities properly again, room for a big error in Clinton's favour.
    Colorado has barely more than 20% of its population Hispanic and it voted for Dole in 1996, even if it has a slightly above average Hispanic population the vast majority of its voters will be white
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    DavidL said:

    619 said:
    This is the way I am seeing it this morning. Until now Hispanics have been one of the least likely to vote segments in the US and any half competent polling model will reflect that. If they turn out in much greater numbers than the models indicate they are sufficiently populous and sufficiently concentrated to swing several sunshine states.
    That's the obvious implication if this were the only anomaly in differential turnout but there are a lot of other factors. The model that could predict this election won't be designed until after the votes have been counted.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,010
    kle4 said:

    taffys said:

    What's the view on here about an early general election?

    Personally I think its a ruse to concentrate minds. Especially labour minds.

    I think there is massive temptation to do so, particularly if the court upholds the judgement, but I think May would be happy to carry on. The process will be frustrated a little, but that actually gives her even more time to prepare.
    I think an election is the last thing she wants. If she's desperate for the thing not even to be debated in the House of Commons, she must be terrified by the thought of it being the central question in a lengthy election campaign. The danger would be that Brexit was taken as given, and the debate was about Hard versus Soft Brexit. Her own party is still divided on Europe, as it has been for decades. If she's worked out how to bridge the divide, there's no sign of it.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    ''There is nothing here to suggest that the Art 50 decision was motovated by anything other than the law.''

    Well that's your view and you are entitled to it. The point is, are newspapers entitled to disagree, and disagree violently?

    Some on here say they aren't, but other countries regard the assumption on which their reasoning rests (ie that judges can be politically impartial), as naive.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    edited November 2016
    DavidL said:

    619 said:
    This is the way I am seeing it this morning. Until now Hispanics have been one of the least likely to vote segments in the US and any half competent polling model will reflect that. If they turn out in much greater numbers than the models indicate they are sufficiently populous and sufficiently concentrated to swing several sunshine states.
    But.....wwc turnout 55%......college educated white turnout 79%. A trump surge on the day still possible and since most trump first time voters will be normally disengaged voters they won't even know about early voting they will only know about Nov. 8th. And they are better spread out in swing states than hispanics and more of them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    PlatoSaid said:

    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given Trump is doing 8 events in the next 3 days in states ranging from Nevada to North Carolina to Florida to Iowa to New Hampshire and Pennsylvania while Hillary is doing just 4 in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio the momentum will likely be with Trump come polling day. Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are now looking real prospects for him for example and both states have not voted GOP since 2000.

    How much difference, if any, do 'events' make at this point ?
    Enthusiasm at public meetings has not correlated well with electoral success for several decades now.
    It gets him acres of local news coverage and some network coverage. That's what each candidate is after at this stage - they're in message broadcast mode.

    Speaking of that - Trump's latest advert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vST61W4bGm8&feature=youtu.be

    And Scott Adams' analysis re persuasion factor - http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152747601271/trump-the-closer
    Of whom does that advert remind me?
    Who ?
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    taffys said:

    ''There is nothing here to suggest that the Art 50 decision was motovated by anything other than the law.''

    Well that's your view and you are entitled to it. The point is, are newspapers entitled to disagree, and disagree violently?

    Some on here say they aren't, but other countries regard the assumption on which their reasoning rests (ie that judges can be politically impartial), as naive.

    what evidence have they presented to say that? other than one being a gay fencer?
This discussion has been closed.